Blonde hair is rare in lots of European countries, too. That makes sense because it's a recessive trait. It's not very common in Italy, either.

What makes that woman less white than any Christian woman?

As you know, I don't disapprove of screening immigrants on a racial basis.

I do disapprove, however. If it was based on skills or other factors, like being involved in violent criminal organizations, it would seem more reasonable to me. Otherwise it's illogical.

The reason I object to Israeli policy is that some of the most hawkish Jews will support open borders in Europe and North America.

I'm not going to criticize someone for supporting open borders because I am not aware of open borders being a mainstream policy position in the U.S. There is a discussion about what to do about the people who have already immigrated here illegally. The administration's position has fallen short of giving them citizenship, which is not a move I support. Agribusiness and the like wants them in the country, but does not want them to have citizenship, because they want a cheap source of labor.

I will, however, criticize someone for being a hawk.

It is easier to criticise an enemy than it is a friend.

Who should I be criticizing?

[Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11

Eh, a humanistic poster would probably have been in better taste and gotten more recognition. Or a funny poster. I personally got a big kick out of the Satanic statue erected outside of that Oklahoma courthouse. But all things considered, I don't see the harm in one guy with a 'religion is a myth' sign. I also don’t see this guy apologizing for fundy Islam, as was your original claim.

Originally Posted by Kullervo

You will find me in the company of wealthy cultured Aryans like myself, mainly in Hawaii.

...so look harder.

He was certainly no more out for a fight than you are with your boorish superior attitude.

Originally Posted by Kullervo

My point is that unless you live in a very conservative area, Christianity is not a threat to your life and liberty, so I feel the disproportionate focus some atheists have on Christianity is a sign that they have ulterior motives.

Putting your feelings and vague suspicions aside for a moment, do you think it's possible that atheists in any mostly-Christian nation might tend to focus on Christianity because it's the biggest and loudest religion in those nations? I mean hey, maybe outspoken atheists would do better to focus less on Christianity, but is all the focus really surprising? Does it really demand ulterior motives?

The article I posted that graph from pointed out that odd disparity, and I can think of a few reasons. There aren't really any specifically "theist institutions that can be targeted, and there's no such thing as a form of dress that would be associated with atheism. Hence, it's very hard to single out someone or something as atheist unless they specifically mention it.

Perhaps the people who voted against Atheist were religious people? It would make a lot of sense.

That being said, it did cause a bit of a derail. Oops.

[Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11

Putting your feelings and vague suspicions aside for a moment, do you think it's possible that atheists in any mostly-Christian nation might tend to focus on Christianity because it's the biggest and loudest religion in those nations? I mean hey, maybe outspoken atheists would do better to focus less on Christianity, but is all the focus really surprising? Does it really demand ulterior motives?

That's my perception.

It dominates American culture by and far, and specifically attacked atheists. (Remember the Red Scare of the 50's? You were anti-American and a traitor if you didn't believe in God. But countless other cultural events as well.) It also seemed to be the largest enemy to science for many years, even though it didn't need to be.

It's not really shocking for the minority to position itself in opposition to the largest cultural controlling force, especially the one that has already been singling them out for decades. They aren't going to go after the Muslims or any other religion here, because those religions haven't tried to dictate and control the public arena.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

The article I posted that graph from pointed out that odd disparity, and I can think of a few reasons. There aren't really any specifically "atheist" institutions that can be targeted, and there's no such thing as a form of dress that would be associated with atheism. Hence, it's very hard to single out someone or something as "atheist" unless they specifically mention it.

That being said, it did cause a bit of a derail. Oops.

Yeah i think the dress code makes them an easy target for those who are looking to find and abuse them. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the religious jews (hasidic?) that often becomes the target.

Anyway as a jewish person who happens to be a atheist this is the best metaphor anyone would ever share with you to describe your situation:

I'd say I like atheists, but there are two criticisms I have of the atheist movement:

One thing that religious institutions do, that I don't see atheism doing, is charity. I think that if people saw more atheists engaging in charity and so on, people might have a less negative opinion of them. I think that would be more useful than some of the other tactics I see them engaging in.

The other thing about them is that a some of them don't seem to realize that there are other kinds of ideology one can get trapped in. For them, the only source of irrational thinking is religion, and that's not strictly true.

[Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11

I'd say I like atheists, but there are two criticisms I have of the atheist movement:

One thing that religious institutions do, that I don't see atheism doing, is charity. I think that if people saw more atheists engaging in charity and so on, people might have a less negative opinion of them. I think that would be more useful than some of the other tactics I see them engaging in.

The other thing about them is that a some of them don't seem to realize that there are other kinds of ideology one can get trapped in. For them, the only source of irrational thinking is religion, and that's not strictly true.

Hmm you probably do have a good point regarding lack of charity. I dont know cus i am not from the usa. Yeah, they should start atheist charity organizations.

Religion is so overwhelmingly influential judgemental and annoying it's hard to find others which might lead to irrational thought as much as religion. Thr closest i can think of without thinking much is racial prejudice.

Due to a fluke of misinformation, negative atheism - the lack of belief in god - has come to be publicly associated with agnosticism, while positive atheism - the active disbelief in god - is now more commonly associated with atheism. Most self declared atheists will explain that they are negative atheists if asked, but will still get a positive atheist label, which to a religious person sounds like an arrogant bastard belittling their beliefs, even if the overall intention is usually a neutral one.

One thing that religious institutions do, that I don't see atheism doing, is charity. I think that if people saw more atheists engaging in charity and so on, people might have a less negative opinion of them. I think that would be more useful than some of the other tactics I see them engaging in.

The way I look at this argument is to look at the big picture, i.e. sure you get some positives but that comes along with the negatives. Doesn't balance out by any means, imo.

Secondly, of course institutions that rely, nay, NEED charity in order to continue to survive are going to espouse charity as a value.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft